, thus, we have no arguments to consider regarding its reasonableness. See T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1, 9 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (affirming the award of a guardian ad litem's fee when "[t]he father [did] not argue that $200 per hour [was] not a reasonable fee, and [did] not specifically challenge the time the guardian ad litem expended"). Accordingly, we affirm the order insofar as it directs the prospective adoptive parents to pay the guardian ad litem's fee of $6,187.50.

Moreover, citations to general authority do not meet the requirements of Rule 28, Ala. R. App. P. Stockton v. CKPD Dev. Co., LLC, 936 So. 2d 1065, 1078–79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). In T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), this court stated:"The prospective adoptive parents first argue that the father's failure to timely register with the Alabama Putative Father Registry resulted in his irrevocable implied consent to the adoption under [Ala.

McGowan, 915 So. 2d at 555–57 (footnotes omitted). We recognize that the Court of Civil Appeals in Roberts v. Roberts, 189 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), affirmed fees awarded to guardians ad litem, applying the attorney-fee factors set out in Van Schaack v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 530 So. 2d 740, 749 (Ala. 1988). However, Roberts involved a guardian ad litem appointed in a divorce case, and T.C.M. involved a guardian ad litem appointed in an adoption.

Appellate courts are sometimes called upon to review the reasonableness of fees charged or hours billed by a guardian ad litem in an adoption case. See T.E.B. v. C.A., [Ms. CL-2023-0572, Apr. 26, 2024]___ So. 3d___(Ala. Civ. App. 2024); T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1, 9 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). When a party contests the reasonableness of a guardian ad litem fee, the paternal grandmother correctly asserts that Roberts and Shinaberry require a trial court to consider the criteria established in Peebles v. Miley, 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983), before awarding fees and to set out the trial court's reasoning to assure meaningful appellate review.

In Roberts v. Roberts, 189 So.3d 79 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), and T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), this court applied the attorney-fee factors set forth in Van Schaack v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 530 So.2d 740, 749 (Ala. 1988), to address the reasonableness of the awarded guardian ad litem fee.

Rule 17(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., requires that a trial court "ascertain a reasonable fee or compensation to be allowed and paid to [a] guardian ad litem for services rendered …, to be taxed as a part of the costs …." In T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017), this court noted that, usually, costs are taxed to the prevailing party but that a trial court may direct otherwise; consequently, the assessment of a guardian ad litem's fee and the taxation of costs are matters within the trial court's discretion. Because we are reversing the trial court's judgment awarding the paternal grandmother visitation, we also reverse the trial court's award of the guardian ad litem's fee and remand the case for the trial court to reassess the award of the guardian ad litem's fee considering this court's holding.

See R.B.S. v. K.M.S., 58 So.3d 795, 800 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (quoting Muhammad v. Ford, 986 So.2d 1158, 1165 (Ala. 2007), quoting in turn Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Heilman, 876 So.2d 1111, 1124 n.8 (Ala. 2003) ) (" ‘ "An argument not made on appeal is abandoned or waived." ’ "); see also T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1, 4 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (quoting Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So.2d 284, 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) ) (" ‘An appeals court will consider only those issues properly delineated as such, and no matter will be considered on appeal unless presented and argued in brief.’ ").